Abstract

Excerpted From: Nathan Frischkorn and Samuel Waxman, Power and Pollution: Approaching Coal-fired Power Plants and Renewable Energy Through a Racial Justice Lens, 10 Chicago-Kent Journal of Environmental and Energy Law 1 (Spring, 2021) (191 Footnotes) (Full Document)

In summer 2020, the United States experienced what was possibly the largest movement for racial justice since the 1960s. Months of protests were ignited by the public killing of George Floyd, a Black man, by a Minneapolis police officer. In a video viewed by millions of people around the world, the officer knelt on George Floyd's neck and back while Floyd was handcuffed, repeatedly stating he could not breathe. After eight minutes and forty-six seconds, his body laid lifeless on the pavement. While Black Americans have long been targeted by excessive police violence, the particularly outrageous way in which Floyd was murdered caused protests to erupt nationwide.

Unfortunately, Black Americans continue to also face myriad forms of governmental violence from entities other than law enforcement. The 7,000 people who live in the part of Detroit, Michigan encompassed by zip code 48217--often called America's most toxic zip code--have been subjected to decades of extremely poor air quality. Coal-fired power plants and other industrial polluters have caused this predominantly Black, low-income community to suffer from shortened lifespans, as well as a significantly degraded quality of life with high rates of asthma, cancer, and other illnesses. Both the plight of the residents of zip code 48217 and the killing of George Floyd are rooted in the deep-seated systemic racism pervading this country; both are a result of structural and systematic devaluing of Black lives.

This article spotlights connections between the racism exhibited by police brutality and the racism perpetuating environmental and energy injustices in U.S. cities, and offers specific strategies for addressing the latter problem. Specifically, this article highlights how coal-fired power plants impose disproportionate health hazards on many Black and low-income communities. This article also outlines policy changes capable of remedying these disproportionate impacts by incentivizing cleaner, more sustainable, and more equitable forms of energy development within those communities.

Part I briefly describes the history of the movements for racial justice and environmental justice, as well as the impacts of coal-fired power plants and available technological alternatives. Both an analytical framework and specific policies are needed to understand and address the racially disparate impacts caused by coal-fired power plants, and to help guide a transition to a more equitable energy system. Part II describes the analytical framework of a just transition for communities plagued by pollutive energy facilities, focusing on environmental, energy, and climate justice, as well as energy democracy. Part III applies this analytical framework to specific policies that support and facilitate a just transition from urban coal-fired power plants toward more racially just and environmentally sustainable energy strategies.

[. . .]

Coal-fired power plants that have long contributed to racial and environmental injustices should be replaced with cleaner and more sustainable forms of energy development. These forms of energy development can be used to promote corrective justice and economic vitality within low-income and communities of color. Fortunately, there are many useful policy mechanisms for facilitating this transition, which environmental justice advocates have recommended for years. The environmental justice movement arose from the racial justice movement and has a long, rich history in this country. The racial justice movement, which has once again forced a national reckoning with the abysmal history of race relations in the U.S. following the public killing of George Floyd in the summer of 2020, compels the nation to intensify its focus on environmental and energy injustices.

Systemic racism has long exhibited itself in the disproportionate distribution of polluting energy facilities, including coal-fired power plants, just as clearly as it exhibits itself through the disproportionately high rate of police killings of Black Americans. Because racial justice, environmental justice, and energy justice are interconnected, truly achieving justice and equity in the U.S. will require a whole-systems approach to these problems.

Analyzing coal-fired power through the lenses of environmental justice, energy justice, climate justice, and energy democracy reveals potential strategies to better address these problems. Policies to incentivize a just transition in coal power host communities must prioritize community input and channel targeted benefits to those who have suffered the most harm from energy injustices. Additionally, care must be taken to ensure that existing inequalities are not exacerbated or replicated in the transition. Merely shifting from fossil-fuel energy generation to renewable energy is inadequate, as that strategy can exacerbate and replicate existing inequalities if it is not approached in a way that is mindful of justice and equity considerations. Transitioning from centralized energy systems to distributed generation puts the power back into the hands of people who are affected by these decisions. Fully decommissioning coal-fired power plants--especially those located in low-income and communities of color--must be prioritized.

Also, utility control over energy systems should be reexamined under the framework of this article. Policies such as RPS carveouts and multiplier provisions that incentivize community ownership, public benefit funds, PACE programs that make financing available for energy justice communities, and community benefits agreements within renewable energy development proposals should be used to address the inequalities rampant in traditional energy systems. Intently crafting and advancing such policies would bring the nation closer to a truly sustainable and equitable energy system.

Nathan Frischkorn, Arizona State University (ASU), Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law

Samuel Waxman, Arizona State University (ASU), Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law